Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Ruth,

>         Translation:  If you place two humans in a garden for eternity and
>         tell them _not_ to do something -- what are the odds that
>         _eventually_ they will?

If you put the human race on a planet and give them the brains and raw
materials needed to build nuclear weapons, what are the odds that
_eventually_ they will?

I see the Garden of Eden story as being just that - a story that tries to
explain how human beings fell from grace with God.  (Why else would there
be so much misery in the world?)  But when you try to look at it logically
it doesn't really hold up.  Was eating from an apple a more serious crime
than Cain killing Able?  Was the serpent really the most subtle of God's
creatures?  How could it talk if it had no vocal chords?  How could it
think if it had a reptilian brain?  And so on.

				-- Bob

    I take the Science of Mind viewpoint on this.  (Surprise, surprise,
    right Ruth?)
    
    To me the Garden of Eden story is an allegory of how we, as humans,
    choose to separate ourselves from God, i.e. deny the truth not only of
    who God is but who we are in relation to God...(deep breath) and how we
    pay the consequences of that choice.  I believe that God works in each
    of our lives to the extent that we choose to allow that work to take
    place.  If we deny God's presence (turn from God in denial, or
    disobedience as in the story) then we shoulder the burden of life alone 
    and make our own way with our limited resources.  This is what Adam and 
    Eve being shut out of the garden symbolizes.  On the other hand we do 
    have the choice to acknowledge and accept what we are, beloved children 
    of a loving and unlimited Creator and enter into a partnership with God.   
    
    I don't believe that the choice the story symbolizes a one time only
    deal.  I believe it's a choice we conciously or unconciously make
    in every thing we do, think and are every second of our existence.
    
    Nanci

>Was the serpent really the most subtle of God's
>creatures?  How could it talk if it had no vocal chords?  How could it
>think if it had a reptilian brain?  And so on.

    Not only could the serpent talk, it apparently could walk, too.  Note
    that Yahweh's punishment for the serpent was to make it slither on the
    ground.  The implication is that it *didn't* move around that way
    before; perhaps it had legs or something.

    In Aesop's fables, animals were often anthropomorphized and did things
    that they can't do in real life.

    -- Mike

  >Translation:  If you place two humans in a garden for eternity and
  >tell them _not_ to do something -- what are the odds that
  >_eventually_ they will?

Well, let's include a little more pertinent information.  The humans
we are discussing were perfect.  There is no doubt in my mind that
without the grace of God, that eventually our sin would lead us to
rebel against God if any of us would be there.

Now, in considering perfect people, I haven't a clue what the odds
are.  No data to compare against.  

Collis

re: Note 671.4 by Collis "Roll away with a half sashay" 

>Well, let's include a little more pertinent information.  The humans
>we are discussing were perfect.  There is no doubt in my mind that
>without the grace of God, that eventually our sin would lead us to
>rebel against God if any of us would be there.

But Collis, if they were so perfect, why did they choose to disobey God?

Peace,

Jim

    It is my perspective that Eden is given *WAY* too much emphasis and
    significance, and that Genesis was basically backfill for Exodus.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .5

free will

    Characterizing people who sin, through their own free will, as
    "perfect" is oxymoronic (and I'm not too sure about the oxy- part :^)).
    I say this based on my understanding of the word "perfect" as defined in
    English dictionaries and in every other application of the word that I
    have seen... but I guess I could be wrong.  It could be a form of
    "religion-ese" (i.e. word convolution) that I am not familiar with. 
    
    		Eric

    Yeah, I would define a person as "perfect" if they could not make
    mistakes.  If they make a mistake, or do something wrong, then they
    couldn't have been perfect after all.
    
    I don't know, perhaps what Collis means is that Adam and Eve were
    sinless, not that they were perfect.
    
    -- Mike

I agree that sinless is a better term than perfect.

However, you might consider that pitchers can be
pitching a "perfect" game until someone gets a hit
(for example).  At that point (and only at that point)
is it no longer "perfect".

Collis

    RE: .10

    Then that would only mean that the pitcher was performing
    perfectly up until that point.  It would be incorrect
    however (IMO) to state that the pitcher himself (or herself)
    were perfect.

    This (overall issue) is confusing to me.   If God created beings 
    which were supposed to be perfect but also gave them free will which He
    must have known ahead of time would lead them to make imperfect 
    choices, then what was the point?

    The whole setup seems rather absurd to me.  An omnipotent being
    could play out the entire history of human kind in his head
    before ever creating the first ray of light.  Why go to all the
    trouble only to have your creation "fail" ???  And if it were
    meant to fail in the first place, why the elaborate and highly
    praised idea that we *were* perfect and that we have "fallen" ???
    Is this a tease?  Kind of a "See!  Look what you *could* have had!!!"
    (seems kind of mean-spirited to me).  Or is it a picture of what is 
    to come (e.g. heaven) if we do right while here on earth?

    Why not just create us as "sinners" from the beginning, give us
    a (clear!) book of rules along with free will, and let the chips
    fall where they may?  Why all the trial and error?  Why couldn't
    God get it right the first time?

    /Greg

    RE: .11
    
>    The whole setup seems rather absurd to me.
    
    Greg,
    
    	I could be wrong, but I think you've hit upon the very issue
    posed to us in the basenote.
    
    Pax,
    Richard

re:   Note 671.11 by Greg

For more insight into your questions, I recommend Oolon Kolufid's trilogy

		_Where God Went Wrong_
		_God's 10 Greatest Mistakes_
		_10 More of God's Greatest Mistakes_

(Apologies to Douglas Adams' _HitchHiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ for probably 
getting the titles a bit jumbled.)

Peace,  & .-)

Jim

    RE: .11 Greg

>    An omnipotent being
>    could play out the entire history of human kind in his head
>    before ever creating the first ray of light.  Why go to all the

    What makes you think this isn't what's actually happening now?

    Tom

    >What makes you think this isn't what's actually happening now?
    
    Nothing, really.  
    
    What difference would it make to us if we experience everything God 
    imagines us experiencing?
    
    /Greg
    
    

    
    The sin wasn't taking a bite of a piece of fruit.  It was pride.
    Wanting to be like God...to know everything He knows.  Pride is a 
    choice, not a given.  It was this sin that got Lucifer and the 
    angels that followed him kicked out of Heaven and damned for eternity.
    I'd say the odds were in favor of Adam and Eve not sinning.  Angels
    are eternal beings too and the majority of them did not and have not
    fallen.
    
    Jill